Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

sferrin said:
Program cancelled as "too risky" in 3...2...1
Click to expand...
Hah.

The good news is the missile didn't fire, so they still have the test article to go back and try again once they figure out what went wrong.
 
TomS said:
sferrin said:
Program cancelled as "too risky" in 3...2...1
Click to expand...
Hah.

The good news is the missile didn't fire, so they still have the test article to go back and try again once they figure out what went wrong.
Click to expand...
Five bucks says Airman Nomnuts didn't hook it up right, or the pylon it was on wasn't wired properly.

Its happens fair often apparently in training...
 
Firefinder said:
TomS said:
sferrin said:
Program cancelled as "too risky" in 3...2...1
Click to expand...
Hah.

The good news is the missile didn't fire, so they still have the test article to go back and try again once they figure out what went wrong.
Click to expand...
Five bucks says Airman Nomnuts didn't hook it up right, or the pylon it was on wasn't wired properly.

Its happens fair often apparently in training...
Click to expand...
So where's the checklist? Where's the two sets of eyes on this thing? It's not THAT hard to do.
 
Last edited:
What probably failed (ground test shown):

WileECayote.jpg


And an exclusive footage of the test manager on his way to report the failure.

f14eaa35e7f715f92df3d9995eed9ad8.gif
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
So where's the checklist? Where's the two sets of eyes on this thing? It's not THAT hard to do.
Click to expand...
Absolutely when it's blue suit maintenance, contract off of the street, not so much...not speaking from experience or anything like that...
 
mkellytx said:
sferrin said:
So where's the checklist? Where's the two sets of eyes on this thing? It's not THAT hard to do.
Click to expand...
Absolutely when it's blue suit maintenance, contract off of the street, not so much...not speaking from experience or anything like that...
Click to expand...
Other countries seem to manage. The US seemed to manage in the past. There's nothing magic about flight testing. Is it complex? Sure. Lot's of things are. That's what check-lists and checking and re-checking are for. Not speaking from experience or anything like that. . .
 
sferrin said:
mkellytx said:
Absolutely when it's blue suit maintenance, contract off of the street, not so much...not speaking from experience or anything like that...
Click to expand...
Other countries seem to manage. The US seemed to manage in the past. There's nothing magic about flight testing. Is it complex? Sure. Lot's of things are. That's what check-lists and checking and re-checking are for. Not speaking from experience or anything like that. . .
Click to expand...
If by other countries you mean China and Russia, then good on you for believing Pravda and China Daily. The US managed quite well when experienced guys in uniform did the maintenance and BB stacking. No so much when we switched to contract maintenance because guys in uniform were too expensive, I was there when that killed a pilot and severely injured the Nav. who was supposed to come to my squadron.

Basic blue suit maintenance is more than checklists, it's a system. Those highly experience guys went through 8 weeks of basic, then 6-12 months of tech school depending on their specialty and at that point they were three levels. They show up to their given airframe with a blank 623, and can't touch an aircraft unsupervised. Over the next 18 months they must attend local training, demonstrate proficiency on all of their tasks in the 623 and may not do any task unsupervised that wasn't signed off in their 623. After all tasks are signed off, then they have to pass their end of course exam at a 90-95% bar to receive their five level. Now they are trusted to do their job unsupervised, but any safety of flight task is inspected and signed off by a seven level. After several years when the five level makes SSgt they begin a similar, but more rigorous upgrade to get their seven level. That's just the normal day to day maintenance at any operational base.

Before ED went contract, all of those five and seven levels were experienced folks, not brand new and no three levels. The difference with flight test was in the best case they had a draft TO for whatever new was put on the aircraft. It wasn't uncommon that they would be the ones developing a TO. So yes it is a bit different than normal and there's a whole level of training and discipline from someone just off the street usually doesn't have.

Now from a test conduct and aircrew perspective it's way more than just checklists and re-checking, there's a system that took 50-60 years to build when I was there that consisted of training, organization, and many barriers set up to keep the swiss cheese from lining up. When I was there a seemingly insignificant lapse in judgement/discipline killed a test pilot. I'm alive today because of my test pilot's special training. While I was at ED it was easy to dismiss the robustness of the system as this stuff is not that hard, until I started working in another industry with supposedly robust barriers to see that it was. Now this could be something particular to where our general culture is here in the US today, because I've gotten to work with a lot of Canadians and Europeans who seem to be able to take people off the street and instill that level of discipline.

Excellence requires vigilance, a willingness to work hard to sustain it and doesn't need much to lose it.
 
Last edited:
mkellytx said:
sferrin said:
mkellytx said:
Absolutely when it's blue suit maintenance, contract off of the street, not so much...not speaking from experience or anything like that...
Click to expand...
Other countries seem to manage. The US seemed to manage in the past. There's nothing magic about flight testing. Is it complex? Sure. Lot's of things are. That's what check-lists and checking and re-checking are for. Not speaking from experience or anything like that. . .
Click to expand...
If by other countries you mean China and Russia, then good on you for believing Pravda and China Daily. The US managed quite well when experienced guys in uniform did the maintenance and BB stacking. No so much when we switched to contract maintenance because guys in uniform were too expensive, I was there when that killed a pilot and severely injured the Nav. who was supposed to come to my squadron.

Basic blue suit maintenance is more than checklists, it's a system. Those highly experience guys went through 8 weeks of basic, then 6-12 months of tech school depending on their specialty and at that point they were three levels. They show up to their given airframe with a blank 623, and can't touch an aircraft unsupervised. Over the next 18 months they must attend local training, demonstrate proficiency on all of their tasks in the 623 and may not do any task unsupervised that wasn't signed off in their 623. After all tasks are signed off, then they have to pass their end of course exam at a 90-95% bar to receive their five level. Now they are trusted to do their job unsupervised, but any safety of flight task is inspected and signed off by a seven level. After several years when the five level makes SSgt they begin a similar, but more rigorous upgrade to get their seven level. That's just the normal day to day maintenance at any operational base.

Before ED went contract, all of those five and seven levels were experienced folks, not brand new and no three levels. The difference with flight test was in the best case they had a draft TO for whatever new was put on the aircraft. It wasn't uncommon that they would be the ones developing a TO. So yes it is a bit different than normal and there's a whole level of training and discipline from someone just off the street usually doesn't have.

Now from a test conduct and aircrew perspective it's way more than just checklists and re-checking, there's a system that took 50-60 years to build when I was there that consisted of training, organization, and many barriers set up to keep the swiss cheese from lining up. When I was there a seemingly insignificant lapse in judgement/discipline killed a test pilot. I'm alive today because of my test pilot's special training. While I was at ED it was easy to dismiss the robustness of the system as this stuff is not that hard, until I started working in another industry with supposedly robust barriers to see that is was. Now this could be something particular to where our general culture is here in the US today, because I've gotten to work with a lot of Canadians and Europeans who seem to be able to take people off the street and instill that level of discipline.

Excellence requires vigilance, a willingness to work hard to sustain it and doesn't much to lose it.
Click to expand...

And after all that they still use check-lists. BTW, I never said check-lists were the ONLY factor. If they're not followed, or incomplete, or inadequate, they're useless. And that's why they're reviewed, ideally by all the players involved. But if after reviews, trial runs, check-list reviews, etc. and you STILL have a, "whoops, forgot to pull a "Remove Before Flight" flag that flushes millions of dollars down the toilet, yeah, somebody needs to be sh-t-canned. Probably multiple somebodies. Not defended.
 
sferrin said:
And after all that they still use check-lists. BTW, I never said check-lists were the ONLY factor. If they're not followed, or incomplete, or inadequate, they're useless. And that's why they're reviewed, ideally by all the players involved. But if after reviews, trial runs, check-list reviews, etc. and you STILL have a, "whoops, forgot to pull a "Remove Before Flight" flag that flushes millions of dollars down the toilet, yeah, somebody needs to be sh-t-canned. Probably multiple somebodies. Not defended.
Click to expand...
Let's drop the fixation with checklists, it's only 5-10% of the test part, the test part is usually only a small part of the maintenance part. Now SOP, is SOP for line operations, but test flight for the most part involves flying outside of SOP, either because it isn't yet written or the safety margins are being confirmed so you fly to the margin past the limit.

First you select highly experienced pilots, navs, WSO's and engineers to go to Test Pilot School. Engineering/hard science degrees are required for pilots and navs, if you're an engineer a masters degree is an unofficial requirement. At TPS all receive a masters degree in flight test over one very intense year of training. There are a handful non-TPS aircrew spots, pilot/nav/FTE in the test squadrons, but this is primarily talent identification. FWIW, I jumped directly into one of these slots on the strength of my graduate degree in engineering with a focus on flight test and three years experience in bomber maintenance, otherwise this was usually a reward for high potential operations engineer LT's who could be good TPS students in the future. The civilian work force is heavily weighted towards retired military with prior flight test experience, the one exception I remember was Doc, who had a PhD and worked a NASA console for ISS. Incidentally, he was also the first civilian admitted to USAF TPS. The leadership of course are exclusively patch wearers. That's the personnel pool, in the flying squadron. There's also the army of discipline engineers matrixed to the CTF, but typically those are just normal engineers.

The job starts at program inception, the flight testers are part of the IPT from the beginning. Early input usually focuses on the development of MOE's, MOP's and TIS's. There's also a heavy bit of feedback/interaction with the contractor's engineers in the SIL around features, functionality and a bunch of other stuff to help develop the requirements for a particular software block update or weapons integration. Once the design is frozen and scope is known, the focus shifts to developing test and safety plans, FTE's tend to do a lot of the heavy lifting in this space. There's a well established process and multiple organizations dedicated towards challenging and assuring these plans. A key deliverable of these plans are the technical data that's required to be captured and the barriers necessary to do this safely, and yes the FTE is typically writing and staffing this, the test pilots and test navs join the FTE for the test and safety reviews.

Now there's an approved test and safety plan, the FTE starts writing test cards, scheduling assets and non rated aircrew to support the flights. Now the qualified FTE's can be test conductors or FTE's, there are separate qualifications for each. All, TPS grads are tracked for both from day one, brand new LT's start with qualifying as operations engineers, work their way towards becoming test conductors. If the LT is sharp they get selected to qualify as FTE's, goes back to the talent development stuff. If you have the right background, educations and timing you can bypass steps, which I happened to win that lottery and jumped straight into Test Conductor and FTE quals from the get go, but that was the exception, no the rule, unless of course if you were a patch wearer, which of course made you more equal...

Let's see, personnel, programmatic stuff, squadron level quals, now there's enough of a foundation to start talking about individual missions. Test cards off course must meet a review and approval cycle. The TC puts together the test readiness briefing which makes sure everything is in place to do the mission the next day. The particular GMC's and THA's to that mission are reviewed here. The broader cast of characters are dismissed and the TC/TD and aircrew redline the test cards, when this is done the aircrew brief, if you're in the FTE or flying FTE/TC you stay for this.

Day of test, if you're FTE you come in and do normal aircrew stuff, going to life support and getting your gear. Everyone, aircrew and TC/TD come together for the T-0 and make sure the weather and assets are good for the test. Once that's complete the aircrew do their own brief and the TC/TD and control room crew go to the control room and set it up for the test. If you're aircrew you step to the jet, do the walk around, review the forms and brief with the maintenance guys at the jet.

Now it's show time, and the test cards and checklist come out of the pubs bags and helmet bags and once power is on the jet the control room and crew start working together when the radios are powered up. Usually, at this point it is a usually start with the caveat of starting the special instrumentation if you're the FTE. Now you're finally into checklist type of activity.

Once you finish flying, there's all of the good stuff about the different debriefs, reports and what not. If you do something particularly cool there's of course the technical papers and submitting/presenting to the relevant bodies. On top of all of this of course basic proficiencies have to be maintained and upgrades to instructor status must be pursued. But again not a whole lot special here, since it's really pretty easy stuff to get right, since it's just normally complex stuff.
 
mkellytx said:
sferrin said:
And after all that they still use check-lists. BTW, I never said check-lists were the ONLY factor. If they're not followed, or incomplete, or inadequate, they're useless. And that's why they're reviewed, ideally by all the players involved. But if after reviews, trial runs, check-list reviews, etc. and you STILL have a, "whoops, forgot to pull a "Remove Before Flight" flag that flushes millions of dollars down the toilet, yeah, somebody needs to be sh-t-canned. Probably multiple somebodies. Not defended.
Click to expand...
Let's drop the fixation with checklists,
Click to expand...
It's literally in the second sentence: "I never said check-lists were the ONLY factor." And really, you only proved my point: all that time and money only to fail due to a bone-headed mistake should cost some people their jobs. Not everybody feels that way of course. That's how we continue to get these kinds of mistakes.
 
Something tells me that is going to run into more than a few roadblocks...
 
And how much of that promised funding will actually eventuate, or else not ending up being diverted to bread and circuses, sorry, more 'urgent' social policies?
 
www.army.mil

SEC team adds expertise to hypersonic weapon development

FORT SILL, Okla. –A small group of software engineers with the Software Engineering Center, of the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command, are wor...
www.army.mil www.army.mil
As an Investment Banker I see SEC and thought now the Securities and Exchange Commission is involved in hypersonics :D
 
Last edited:
bobbymike said:
www.army.mil

SEC team adds expertise to hypersonic weapon development

FORT SILL, Okla. –A small group of software engineers with the Software Engineering Center, of the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command, are wor...
www.army.mil www.army.mil
As an Investment Banker I see SEC and thought now the Securities and Exchange Commission is involved in hypersonics :D
Click to expand...
And I was hoping Coach Orgeron had another amazing QB with a railgun arm for the Southeastern Conference. Geaux Tigahz!:D
 
news.usni.org

Report to Congress on Hypersonic Weapons - USNI News

The following is the April 26, 2021 Congressional Research Service report, Hypersonic Weapons: Background and Issues for Congress. From the report The United States has actively pursued the development of hypersonic weapons—maneuvering weapons that fly at speeds of at least Mach 5—as a part of...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
Despite test failure, Air Force says ARRW on track to begin production in FY-22

The Air Force's flagship hypersonic boost-glide weapon is on track to start production in fiscal year 2022 as originally planned despite failing to launch during a flight demonstration earlier this month

Newsstand Login | DefenseNewsstand.com

defensenewsstand.com defensenewsstand.com
 
In_A_Dream said:
seruriermarshal said:
bobbymike said:
www.airforcemag.com

B-52 Demos Hypersonic Missile Kill Chain at Northern Edge Exercise | Air & Space Forces Magazine

A B-52H bomber demonstrated the steps necessary to fire a hypersonic missile at a target during the Northern Edge exercise in Alaska.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
Now just need a working missile
Click to expand...
It's strange , seems like they had tested a working missile . maybe a prototype in black world ?
Click to expand...
Anything is possible :)
Click to expand...
I just remember :

"I've had a few congressmen ask me [about it]," Ray said during the Mitchell podcast, posted April 1. "And you know what? Honestly, I think it's stupid.

"I just think it's a stupid idea to go and invest that kind of money that recreates something that the [Air Force] has mastered and that we're doing already right now," he said, referring to the U.S. bomber arsenal. "Why in the world would you try that? I try to make sure that my language isn't a little more colorful than it is, but give me a break. … I kind of get it in Europe, but I completely don't get it in the Pacific."

www.military.com

Service Chiefs Confer After Air Force General Calls Army Hypersonic Missile Plan 'Stupid'

An Air Force general's swipe at the Army's plans for long-range precision strike missiles in the Pacific led to top leaders talking it out last week.
www.military.com www.military.com
 
From Inside Defense pay site


Navy to rip out DDG-1000 Advanced Gun System mounts to make room for hypersonic weapons​

The Navy plans to rip out the DDG-1000's Advanced Gun System mounts -- the original focus of the Zumwalt-class destroyer's offensive firepower -- to make room for a new vertical launch system that will fire Conventional Prompt Strike missiles, as part of a new goal that scraps five years of planning to field long-range hypersonic weapons on Ohio-class submarines
———-
Can’t we also put them on Ohio’s.....please?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom